Enjoying liberals heads exploding when Trump won makes no sense to me because you basically got the result that was worse than any liberal. There’s a reason why I keep mentioning that Trump is evil. And, unlike other contenders, he was completely and totally upfront about it.
That’s why I keep saying that it seems that our country has lost the difference between Good and Evil. Because, when you had a choice against normal politician and 80’s movie villain, nearly half chose the 80s movie villain. He’s a smarmy asshole who attacks anyone who doesn’t say he’s the greatest. Heck, a 80s villain is usually smarter.
It would be different if he were even slightly charismatic. Then I could think people liked him as a person. But he’s not. He’s an asshole, through and through. He attacks everyone. He’s not remotely the type of person you could ever even want to be friends with, because he’d betray you at the drop of a hate. There is nothing at all nice or kind about this man. He does not do anything to make you feel better about yourself. He’s just awful.
Even before the election, I had to just stop listening to his shitty voice. I know what he says from transcripts and reporting. I can’t even listen to him say stuff that makes a fool out of himself.
He is the example of everything I was ever taught growing up about evil people. It makes no sense to enjoy people being freaked out. It should freak you out, too, that our society has lost its ability to care about right and wrong.
Trump is no Republican. And, if you didn’t win, then why is it fun to see other people lose? Why is it fun to see good people upset? It’s fun to see horrible people upset, because they got what’s coming to them. But pretty much everyone I know freaking out about Trump is a good person. That’s why they’re freaking out.
I don’t feel that way, at least thus far. I believe HRC would have been worse. And as for your definitions of good and evil, I think you’ll find that yours aren’t universally-agreed-upon.
I’m under the impression that it shouldn’t take a halfway competent Googler but a few minutes to find plenty of examples of left-wing racists, bigots, misogynist, etc. At least enough to disabuse a sincere inquirer of whether those attitudes are exclusively conservative or not.
I may disagree, but if she had used the phrase “more likely” I probably wouldn’t have taken the time to object. But she didn’t, did she? No. She said they “always seem to be conservative.” Surely you don’t agree with such a ludicrous position, right?
So, if there’s one racist, misogynist bigot who labels themselves “left-wing”, you win? Heads you win, tails, you win, and if it lands securely on its edge, you win double?
Oh, I don’t know, I think the common understanding of “evil” is pretty clear.
For instance, what side has been taking the position-- just discussed and endorsed by you upthread – that returning to coal as a fossil fuel is a great idea, despite it being the most dangerous and polluting fossil fuel known, and totally unnecessary because there are cleaner fuels available that can even be cheaper, too? With the justification that, hey, someone made investments in it? What side, indeed, has been generally predisposed to trashing the environment in blind pursuit of profit? Which side has been consistently pushing climate change denial at the expense of public health and safety and our collective future?
Which side has the religious nutters and young-earthers, denies biological evolution, and wants to see an anti-science agenda in public schools that denies climate change along with evolution denial? That is, assuming they don’t want to dismantle the public education system altogether, as the new Sec of Education does.
Which political party does this smiling asshole belong to, the broad smile due to the announcement of the new Republican health care bill that the CBO just determined would leave 22 million needy people without health care? I mean, if that’s not something worth smiling about, I don’t know what is!
Who’s the new president who got elected in large part on a platform of xenophobia and Islamophobia who has been trying for months to ban Muslims? And who is all the more popular with his base for his history of misogyny. Which is the party that has been, and remains, consistently against women’s reproductive rights? How about against gay rights?
And that’s barely getting started. Yeah, I think most of us know what evil looks like.
Really? Do you think that abortion is “evil”? Some people do. Do you think that Zimmerman shooting Trayvon in self-defense was “evil”? Some people do. Do you think that USA bombing ISIS is “evil”? Some people do. Each one of these is probably a minority opinion in America today, and yet not particularly uncommon. There is not a consensus on what constitutes “evil”.
I may be mistaken, but IIRC, I was arguing that it was bringing back jobs, not that it was, overall, “a great idea”.
I don’t think equating support for vouchers with “want to dismantle the public education system altogether” is accurate.
Perhaps he was smiling about the 30% estimated decrease in insurance premium costs? Overall, would you say that the CBO has a great / good / poor track record about estimating the effects of changes to federal law on our healthcare?
No one said “exclusively”. I must not be a halfway competent Googler because I just keep coming up with conservative articles bemoaning the negative treatment of Trump or conservative guest speakers at liberal colleges.
The conservative narrative on “liberal bigotry and racism” is that blacks, immigrants and other minorities are lazy criminals who hate white people and just want to come here to take advantage of some perceived free benefits. For a “cite” one simply has to look at Trumps entire campaign platform. This is simply a scare tactic to frighten their mostly white, older base away from any progressive legislation.
“Although 76,000 [coal industry employees] might seem like a large number, consider that similar numbers of people are employed by, say, the bowling (69,088) and skiing (75,036) industries. Other dwindling industries, such as travel agencies (99,888 people), employ considerably more. Used-car dealerships provide 138,000 jobs. Theme parks provide nearly 144,000. Carwash employment tops 150,000.”
If your point is that “politics is complicated”, then I agree. However, this does not change the fact – and should not obscure the fact – that contemporary Republicans are extraordinarily associated with positions that are uniquely uncaring of minorities and the disadvantaged and have a unique disdain for facts, science, and the environment, as in the examples I gave. They overwhelmingly prioritize self-serving financial gain over the public interest and a peaceful and just society. To argue that there are merits to be found in some of these positions if you dig deep enough is to obfuscate how extreme and single-minded the contemporary right-wing ideology has become. That’s about as good a characterization of “evil” as you’re ever going to get.
Does it seem like racists are always on the right? Yes, absolutely. Is it a fact that racists are always on the right? No. But the number of racists on the left - particularly people with some amount of political or economic clout, and not just random knobs on Twitter - is so completely dwarfed by their counterparts on the right, that it absolutely seems like every racist is also a conservative.
While “Consensus” can mean unanimity of agreement, it can also mean majority agreement. In this sense, arguing that there is no consensus of what constitutes “evil” is arguing from a position of amorality.
Because a minority argues that bombing Daesh (I refuse to call them ISIS) is evil doesn’t mean that there can be no consensus on the subject.
I would think that any honest analysis of facts and history shows that ever since George Wallace courted the favor of southern democrats on a platform of explicit racism, the Republican party has been explicitly using racism to court what has become a large and vital part of its support base. The republican party is explicitly reliant upon racism to continue to exist as a significant political entity. This is not something the Democratic party has done (admittedly, probably because they missed the chance to), and so racism/bigotry simply isn’t a bipartisan subject.
Yeah, sure, there are a few racists and idiots among the ranks of the democrats. But what kind of a historical/factual blindspot would you need to have to even pretend that republicans don’t dominate the field of open and accepted bigotry?